Beauty Dish - Metal vs. Plastic

Hi All,

I’m trying to decide which beauty dish to purchase for my AB800s and have narrowed my choices to the Buff and Kacey products. I’ll be using it indoors mainly for portraits. I’ve read that the Buff dish is made of thin aluminum which dents/bends easily while the Kacey is made of plastic.
My thoughts:
If the Buff dents, I guess it can be pushed back in place. If the Kacey plastic cracks or chips, not much you can do.
Also, the shaft of the Buff’s direct-light blocker is not permanently attached and must be assembled each time – an inconvenience and pieces can be lost. The Buff dish has a smooth interior while the Kacey’s is stepped; not sure if that makes a difference.
Any experiences with the structural integrity of the each product?
Thanks in advance.

The Buff dish is a bit thin and easily bent. I'm not sure that it makes that much difference unless you are really worried about how good your gear looks. Its not like it gets deformed enough to affect performance. But lots of people are very attentive to minor cosmetic defects in their gear, if thats you then move along to something else. I have the Buff HOBD and honestly I dont use it much. Its a hard light and since I tend to shoot wrinkled and imperfect people who dont benefit from such light. You might want to consider the white buff dish or the Kacey if you want a bit softer light.

I use the HOBD white and silver with and w/o sock/grid. I like the fact that the deflector is easily removable/adjustable. It won't get broken, or bent, and it's more easily stored. To be honest, there are very, very few people that could tell from an image what brand BD you used. Most don't even use them the way they were intended to be used.

I have heard some well known photographers say that they prefer the BD with the sock on it..... well that makes it a 22" softbox. It's no longer a BD.

The PCB one is easily dented, but it's very efficient. I use it with and w/o sock or grid outside all the time.

rsieminski wrote in post #16380714
I use the HOBD white and silver with and w/o sock/grid. I like the fact that the deflector is easily removable/adjustable. It won't get broken, or bent, and it's more easily stored. To be honest, there are very, very few people that could tell from an image what brand BD you used. Most don't even use them the way they were intended to be used.

I have heard some well known photographers say that they prefer the BD with the sock on it..... well that makes it a 22" softbox. It's no longer a BD.

The PCB one is easily dented, but it's very efficient. I use it with and w/o sock or grid outside all the time.

Can you elaborate on this?

A BD is a very specific light modifier. To get that classic "BD look" it has to be very close, in fact this is a good rule of thumb for ALL modifiers. To achieve the modifier's characteristic effect, working distance should be between as close as possible to 2-2.5(max) times the diameter of the modifier. More than that and the BD is just a reflector. That's not a bad thing, if that's your intended use/look. Like I use it outside because it's so efficient, and it does not catch the wind as much as sm softbox.

So that 22" BD is best used just inches away to no more than about 4' away for the BD effect. See Steven Eastwood's tutorial:
http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …/Tutorials_beau​tydish.htm

The Kaceys is indestructible.

^
This

rsieminski wrote in post #16382834
See Steven Eastwood's tutorial:
http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …/Tutorials_beau​tydish.htm

I always crack up when I read this from the article:
I would grid my grid if I could, I think I have a control issue I need to deal with.....

windpig wrote in post #16383079
I always crack up when I read this from the article:
I would grid my grid if I could, I think I have a control issue I need to deal with.....

Couldn't even be bothered reading more than the first few lines. The English is excruciating and obviously someone doesn't know how to check spellings or even take the trouble to proof-read what has been written. At best, it is semi-literate and hardly conducive to promoting greater knowledge.

Hi Phil, one thing's for sure, the average Brit or Canuck can write and speak much more coherently than the average Amerikan. It's amazing.

windpig wrote in post #16383713
Hi Phil, one thing's for sure, the average Brit or Canuck can write and speak much more coherently than the average Amerikan. It's amazing.

Hmmmm, don't know if that's necessarily true but wouldn't argue the point. The problem with that blog is that the person in question has a severe bout of idle-itis and just couldn't be bothered to re-read what he actually wrote.

If you're putting yourself forwards (as in a feature such as that) as a fount/font of knowledge, it's just a common curtsey to readers to at least make wot you writed intelligible and two czech the spelingz.

Whortleberry wrote in post #16383569
Couldn't even be bothered reading more than the first few lines. The English is excruciating and obviously someone doesn't know how to check spellings or even take the trouble to proof-read what has been written. At best, it is semi-literate and hardly conducive to promoting greater knowledge.

Your posts above makes you come off as a total troll. Just checked out his work. It's awesome. Are we discussing photography or spelling check? Fact is his work with a model and modifiers is 100 times better than anything you have to offer. Please if I'm wrong and you have great images working with such modifiers please post them right away so we can compare your work to his. Google says he is a sponsored Canon shooter and Canon Explorer of Light. Do you have any such credentials? Yes this a challenge for you to show the members that you are more qualified giving advise about photography equipment than Stephen Eastwood. Lets see those images.This ain't no spelling bee

Whortleberry wrote in post #16384309
couldn't be bothered to re-read what he actually wrote.

Well, I'm certainly one that falls into that category

I appreciate that he has a blog that has some worthy information. To be honest, I don't think people give a rip to much about proper syntax as long as there is good info. My ire goes towards the people that call themselves journalist, but write terribly and fail to put a quality stories together.

ElliotD wrote in post #16385383
Your posts above makes you come off as a total troll. Just checked out his work. It's awesome. Are we discussing photography or spelling check? Fact is his work with a model and modifiers is 100 times better than anything you have to offer. Please if I'm wrong and you have great images working with such modifiers please post them right away so we can compare your work to his. Google says he is a sponsored Canon shooter and Canon Explorer of Light. Do you have any such credentials? Yes this a challenge for you to show the members that you are more qualified giving advise about photography equipment than Stephen Eastwood. Lets see those images.This ain't no spelling bee

There is little point in responding to a post which attributes to me things to which I never even alluded.

So, here is a Little Point.

windpig wrote in post #16385576
Well, I'm certainly one that falls into that category

I appreciate that he has a blog that has some worthy information. To be honest, I don't think people give a rip to much about proper syntax as long as there is good info. My ire goes towards the people that call themselves journalist, but write terribly and fail to put a quality stories together.

+1 thanks for the link. With google i've found a wealth of great info from Stephen Eastwood.

As for Wortleberry. You have lost some serious credibility. Nobody likes a troll